1. The Defendant’s KRW 65,339,308 and its annual rate from September 2, 2014 to May 21, 2015, and the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) received a claim claim amounting to KRW 65,339,308 from the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Guj3157, which held in relation to the Non-Party Buritius Co., Ltd.; and (b) received a claim amounting to KRW 65,339,308 on the payment order of the purchase price of goods; and (c) received a seizure and collection order against the Defendant on August 8, 2014, with respect to the claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant on the date Buritius Co., Ltd.

B. On October 2014, the Defendant filed an application for reconciliation prior to filing a lawsuit against the Vietnam War Co., Ltd. to determine the settlement amount of the goods to be paid by the Defendant as KRW 5 billion.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 2 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts in the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 65,339,308 won with the Plaintiff’s right to collect and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from September 2, 2014 to May 21, 2015, which is the day following the day of service of a copy of the instant complaint, stating the Plaintiff’s right to claim the payment to the Defendant, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of the above collection order, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff requested the payment only by delivering the collection order, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff requested the payment to the defendant before the lawsuit in this case.

B. The defendant recognized the obligation of KRW 500,000 to be incurred by the Vietnam War Co., Ltd., but asserts that the obligation of KRW 55,00,000 is scheduled to be deposited in the assignment and acquisition of claims and provisional seizure by many creditors, including the plaintiff.

It is understood that the defendant's debt amount is less than the amount the plaintiff seeks.

Even in this case.